FL: Homeowner charged after shooting fleeing trespasser

[seamusTX]

Long story short: In the Miami area, a homeowner was charged with felony offenses after allegedly shooting an 18-year-old man who tried his door around 1 a.m. and then fled.

Said teenager reportedly worked with the homeowner's daughter and had been making "unwanted advances" toward her.

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat ... 93489.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

[Beiruty]

Not sure about FL laws, but this will not fly in TX. Last year father and son chased down the street and shot (maybe killed, not sure) a guy who was throwing bricks at their house. Shooters were not that honest guys ever (prior convictions?) . Their lawyer got them acquitted

[Keith B]

Not sure about FL laws, but this will not fly in TX. Last year father and son chased down the street and shot (maybe killed, not sure) a guy who was throwing bricks at their house. Shooters were not that honest guys ever (prior convictions?) . Their lawyer got them acquitted

Well, it is a little different with throwing bricks than just knocking on the door at 1AM. While I would be very upset, if there was no attempted forced entry or anything that might cause bodily harm, then I doubt it would fly here either. However, this guy has just been arrested and has not been convicted yet.

[seamusTX]

IMHO, two aspects of this incident look bad for the homeowner:

• The trespasser ran when the homeowner yelled at him through the door). The homeowner then retrieved a weapon and went outside.
• The trespasser lay down when the homeowner told him to stop, and the homeowner then shot him.

This article (assuming it is accurate) makes these facts clearer:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/12/13/1 ... e-for.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe the homeowner will be no-billed or acquitted, but he's in for some sleepless nights and considerable expense.

- Jim

[Texas Size 11]

Shot him after he layed down? That doesn't look good.

[Excaliber]

IMHO, two aspects of this incident look bad for the homeowner:

• The trespasser ran when the homeowner yelled at him through the door). The homeowner then retrieved a weapon and went outside.
• The trespasser lay down when the homeowner told him to stop, and the homeowner then shot him.

This article (assuming it is accurate) makes these facts clearer:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/12/13/1 ... e-for.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe the homeowner will be no-billed or acquitted, but he's in for some sleepless nights and considerable expense.

- Jim

Keep in mind that this is one of those initial news reports that is by definition suspect because they're virtually always incomplete and / or outright wrong on some of the important facts. For example, if the shot was fired after the prostrate trespasser changed his mind, threatened the homeowner, and tried to get up to attack him, the facts as stated would still be true, but the legal analysis would change substantially. Of course, I have no information to indicate that this is what happened, but we don't have enough information to say it's not what happened either. Another typical initial news report.

Whether or not he ends up being successfully prosecuted, this homeowner is going to be spending a lot of time and money trying to extricate himself from deep kimchee because, according to the way the story has been reported so far, he violated a few principles we have repeatedly discussed here on the Forum:

1. He went outside unnecessarily to search for / pursue an apparent prowler in the dark when the tactically superior option of remaining inside to protect his family from a position of advantage until the police could respond and deal with the apparent prowler was available.
2. He didn't use his taxpayer funded police resources to handle a problem they're very well equipped and prepared to manage.
3. He discharged a firearm under circumstances that do not amount to the only viable option to protect innocent life at that moment.

Keeping in mind that some folks primary purpose in life is to do things that serve as a warning to others, and keeping in mind that we don't have enough reliable facts to reach a reliable conclusion on this person's guilt or innocence under the law, the circumstances as reported are worth thinking through with the above comments in mind.

[seamusTX]

While we should never regard a media report as absolutely reliable, these stories are based on a police report or possibly press conference.

The police also are wrong sometimes.

Whatever the underlying facts, the homeowner did, as you say, buy himself a load of trouble. It is unfortunate, because most likely he was innocent of wrongdoing until he pulled the trigger, and the trespasser had ill or criminal intentions.

This course of events may also result in the trespasser not facing charges, and possibly collecting damages from the homeowner.

- Jim

[steve817]

I'm in the process of reading "In The Gravest Extreme" right now. Masaad Ayoob mentions that there is a fine line between being the victim and the attacker. Based on what I have read so far it sounds like the homeowner crossed that line. However I do have to say that as an angry Dad I understand.